To RCD or not?

[Murdochcat]

I suppose the one 'bit of good' which might conceivably come out of this 'landlord legislation' is that it has highlighted the fact that EICRs are not 'fit for purpose', in the sense that (in the absence of any regulation/audit/policing) very few people are in a position to know whether or not any particular EICR is worth the paper it's written on.

It is true that only landlords are compelled by law to act upon findings of what could be a totally 'incorrect' EICR, but there are millions of other people who (in the absence of technical knowledge) are at risk of 'believing what they read' (on an EICR) and hence possibly have expensive unnecessary work undertaken.

Kind Regards, John

It’s a bit ironic that the letting agents have driven the race to the bottom when it comes to EICRs

A while back I was let into a flat by an agent to do an EICR. He offered to wait but I said for about 2.5 hours then?

He said “oh you are going to do it properly then”

It was a small flat

 

[JohnW2]

It’s a bit ironic that the letting agents have driven the race to the bottom when it comes to EICRs A while back I was let into a flat by an agent to do an EICR. He offered to wait but I said for about 2.5 hours then? He said “oh you are going to do it properly then”

It's not only letting agents. Some sellers of properties (and even some estate agents and conveyancers/solicitors acting on their behalf) have been 'trying it on' for decades.

However, in both cases it's only been possible because of the (IMO) ridiculous absence of regulation/oversight/policing or formal guidelines/

 

[ericmark]

I suppose the one 'bit of good' which might conceivably come out of this 'landlord legislation' is that it has highlighted the fact that EICRs are not 'fit for purpose', in the sense that (in the absence of any regulation/audit/policing) very few people are in a position to know whether or not any particular EICR is worth the paper it's written on.

It is true that only landlords are compelled by law to act upon findings of what could be a totally 'incorrect' EICR, but there are millions of other people who (in the absence of technical knowledge) are at risk of 'believing what they read' (on an EICR) and hence possibly have expensive unnecessary work undertaken.

Kind Regards, John

You have hit the nail on the head.

 

[Murdochcat]

However, in both cases it's only been possible because of the (IMO) ridiculous absence of regulation/oversight/policing or formal guidelines/

That’s why I point people at the best practice guide, which is what NICEIC sparks use

I’m often asked to review EICRs for people and the standard is often poor, the time to do them is questionable, which renders them worthless tbh

 

[Adam_151]

but the home owner needs some guidance of what to do first, and the C1, 2, and 3 do that.

I'm not sure it provides as much guidence as would be ideal. Generally C1s won't exist on the report, gnerally because its reserved for only the most immediatly dangerous stuff, and unless there is a good reason why not, it should be made less dangerous at the time of finding, So the broken socket gets taped up, the live cut off cable from the board gets the live taken out the MCB and put in a connector block, etc, so they effectivly become C2s. I'll generally record these as C1 struckthrough with C2 at the side and an explanation.

So now leaves C2 and C3, and what the client sees is C2s to be done, C3s to be ignored, The issue is C3 are improvement recommended but theres a big scope of what that means, its probably not worth spending hundreds to put RCBOs on every cirucit with concealed cables in an office, but it probably is worth buying one for the tea room sockets, I these days tend to indicate separatly the C3s that are 'strongly' recommended to correct. i.e. the ones that if I were in charge of the installation, that I'd bother making improvements on, and while the client might outright ignore this and not touch the C3s, or take it on board but consider in conjuction with budgeting concerns and do some of them, etc. I'm more happy that they have had more guidence over what the standard EICR report framework would give.

 

[JohnW2]

That’s why I point people at the best practice guide, which is what NICEIC sparks use

Maybe what NICEIC sparks are meant to do.

No amount of 'guidelines' are any good in the absence of strictly controlled regulation ('registration'/'licensing and audit/oversight).

 

[ebee]

I think, in essence, we are saying that the old 4 in PIRs is still out there as a C3
to some extent

 

[ebee]

A friend and I were always of the opinion that a widely held vie that the code 1s must be done and the code 2s will be done at sometime when convenient/we can afford it will be done in the future - often never ever!
We believed this was not the intention or it should not be and we considered all code 1 + 2 should be done but obviously the code 1s had priority.
I was glad when C1 and C2 were both considered an Unsat result

 

[JohnW2]

I think, in essence, we are saying that the old 4 in PIRs is still out there as a C3 to some extent

Sort-of - but C3 means (as I think it always has) 'improvement recommended', whereas C4, when it existed,m was (as I understand it) merely an observation of non-compliance (which, I suppose, would now be 'non-conformity' given BS7671's new definition!) without even a 'recommendation'' of improvement.

However, it's probably true that some things which would have got a C4 now get a C3, but only really because C4 is no longer available.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

client sees is C2s to be done, C3s to be ignored

You make a good point, maybe we should drop the coding? List as faults needing correction?

Generally C1s won't exist on the report

I also agree with that, although the lock out devices at £1 a piece one can afford to lose, but some can cost £12 each, it depends on the make of the MCB/RCBO to which will fit. It was all well and good on commercial premises where you know they will return to the electricians quarantine lockup, but not when you may never see them again.

The big problem I found was missing blanks with consumer units, or blanks which can be removed without a tool. This stuff can often be removed with a finger nail, i.e. does not require a tool or key, this however you need to remove the cover to fit them, and are OK, the other stuff is OK then the consumer units lid is locked shut. At 77p each not expensive, but I have from time to time run out of them.

Be it replace a socket, or fit a blank, it is like the MOT station replacing a bulb, some will do it FOC and get a good name as a result, others will fail the car and you have to pay for the repair, or for a retest if you remove the vehicle when the garage it was tested at could have repaired it.

As to the old Wylex fuse box, there would be no point locking off these MCB's as they could be withdrawn and replaced without a tool. The cover in case show is missing, cutting the hole for MCB's was not easy without the bakelite smashing, if it had the thumb screw then still no good, only with a slot headed screw would it comply. As to the RCD's shown feeding the two fuse boxes, I don't think I ever had a lock off device for those, they were fitted around 1992 at that time getting a consumer unit with RCD protection built in was hard, the ELCB-v was still around, I know they were withdrawn, and I would be unable to test them as these test sets only found in museums. But again how would you lock it off? Your not permitted to draw the DNO fuse, and even if you did, it can be replaced without use of a tool.

I was surprised that the HGV MOT station could not stop one taking a vehicle off the premises when found dangerous, they had to get the police to stop you after you left the MOT station and then they could issue a GV9 which means you would need to get a low loader or tow truck to remove it. So one would be daft to try driving it out of the station.

So as to an EICR you need permission to turn off the supply to test it, once turned off you can't reinstate if it attracts code C1, what is not so clear, with domestic, (with commercial the EAW act comes in) can you leave it without locking off. With domestic if the premises are not habitable then you must find alternative accommodation, however not seen anything about who must pay for it? I am not even sure what is required to make premises habitable, I would assume heating, hot water, and dry and lighting, but with latter would a Tilly lamp be good enough?

I am not qualified as a social worker, and I simply can't understand why there are any homeless in the UK when there are hotel places vacant, I would have thought social services should ensure everyone has a roof over their head, but when one sees all the begging adverts on TV it tends to say this is not the case, we should not need the salvation army in the UK, however it seems we do, so as an electrician doing an EICR we have a balance which we have never been trained to make, fail a property and see homeless people as a result where the landlord says enough is enough and simply sell the property, or pass it with faults which should have had a code C2?

To my mind we simply follow the electrical safety council best practice guide, and try not to force anyone hand, we simply do our job, and no one else's. It is not our job to decide if smoke alarms should be fitted or if the work or are in date, that's the job of the fire safety officer, we with an EICR are there to check the electrical installation, no equipment, we do not need to remove the cover from the boiler and check how it is wired. The only current using items we need to check with an EICR are the lights.

 

[JohnW2]

You make a good point, maybe we should drop the coding? List as faults needing correction?

Is that not essentially what is currently done? C2s 'need correction', but, although some 'improvement' is 'recommended', C3 does not mean that anything "needs" to be done. MOT pass certificates can, and often do, include "advisories", so why not EICRs?

Particularly if it were properly regulated, the rules (for coding) could be much more prescriptive (as they are, for example,for a fair proportion of the items looked in an MOT) but, again like MOTs, there will be some issues which will inevitably require judgement/discretion on the part of the inspector - which is why I think it would be crucial not only to 'regulate EICRs' but also regulate who was allowed to do them - with proper oversight and revocation of their 'licence' to do EICRs if they do not undertake the inspections (and/or exercise their judgement) satisfactorily.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

Cowboys and some so called competent people use C2 codes incorrectly

 

[JohnW2]

Cowboys and some so called competent people use C2 codes incorrectly

Indeed, and that's why I keep expressing my belief that strict, and enforced, regulation is required - such that those you are referring to would be banned from undertaking EICRs for life.